On Nov 7, 2007 1:38 PM, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 06/11/2007, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think that when you store a message into a mailbox (LocalDelivery) you > > don't have a real user, unless we introduce a "Spooler" or "Remote" user > > to be used in that use case (I don't like it too much). > > Oh I see. Hmmm, no I don't like the sound if that much either.
yep TorqueMailbox ignores the user. the IMAP client manages mailbox separation by prefixing with user name. IMHO the SoC is wrong here and the design of this part of IMAP needs sorting out. if MailboxManager is responsible for authorization then the MailboxManager should be also responsible for the prefixing. conversely, if the IMAP client is responsible for namespacing and authorisation then the MailboxManager should take abstract names after conversion and ignore the user. opinions? one instance of each mailbox (rather than one-per-user) would allow concurrency and caching to be managed more easily by API implementors. it's inconvenient to have to share locks between multiple instances differing only by the user. IMHO it would be better to introduce an explicit concept of a session created by the MailboxManager and passed into each Mailbox API method. this would be a step towards the transactions that stefano is so keen on. user data could be included as optional meta-data. opinions? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
